A little Shakespearean drama, but not even fucking close to being written as well as the great Shakespeare would have expressed it...
The context is just more proof of what a vindictive evil bastard BibleGod is.
Okay, here we go...
Thou shalt not afflict a widow or fatherless child, but...
...JehovahGod can afflict you with the ultimate affliction - death, and thereby turn your wife and kids into widows and orphans.
Does this make any fucking sense?
I thought the Bible is pro-family. That's what everyone says. Idiots like James Dobson even build careers with organizations like Focus On the Family. God supposedly gives the family unit top shelf. But a family with no father would be worse than one with a father, wouldn't it? Wouldn't being fatherless and husbandless adversely affect the family unit? I wonder how Dobson would twist these verses...
God promises to eradicate disease from among his chosen people. He vows to end "sickness."
What a liar!
Not only does disease continue to exist in the remainder of Exodus, it flourishes even more robustly in the succeeding book of Leviticus and lives on throughout the rest of the entire fucking Bible.
If you can't trust the Maker of the universe to tell the truth and keep his word, who can you trust?
The last time I checked, leprosy was a disease, bowel disease was a disease, the plague was a disease. Not only would God renege on His promise to erase these ailments, He would visit them upon hapless humans more than once in the remaining chapters of The Babble. (See II Chronicles 21 for the visitation of incurable bowel disease upon one unfortunate dude, yea, to the point of the bowels falling out! Even worse, the Lord made him suffer for two years).
Lest Bible-believers interject a plea to read the verse in context, I say "Fuck off!" Christians never, ever consider the context of John 3:16 - instead, they recite that one verse and that one verse only when witnessing to non-believers. They do the same with other verses - they never consider the context but want those who argue with them to. Some verses don't need a context, as they stand out by themselves. Exodus 23:25 is one of those verses. Christians are ignorant about context anyway. Most of them probably don't know what context really means. They imply that by reading other verses around a verse, the meaning of the verse in focus will change. How could context possibly change Exodus 23:25? It means what it says, and can't possibly mean anything else.
The fact that YahwehJehovahGod promised to remove sickness from the Israelites' lives then forced it upon them many times via divine intervention, in both individual and group settings, makes His breach of promise even more egregious. What a fine fucking God. What a fickle fucking God. Maybe He told them He'd remove sickness just so they'd trust Him (actually, trust the priests who used Him as a power tool) a little more. Once they swallowed the hook He fucked them over (well, actually the priesthood fucked them over).
This time the Children get lucky. God repents of the evil He thought about using on them.
Totally nonsensical. Moses has the Levite priests kill about 3,000 men in the Israelite encampment.
An absurd passage for three reasons...one, under the protection of God, the chosen race would automatically have unity and would not suffer casualties from infighting...two, the chosen race would be protected from harm, as God had promised, and certainly wouldn't die at the sword of its brethren the fellow children...three, "about three thousand men" fall during this episode. As author and inspirer and breather of the Bible not to mention the All-Seeing Eye, God would know exactly how many men fell, and would not guesstimate.
This is far from being the only place in the Babble wherein God hurts and harms His own holy chosen. He kicks their enemies' asses most of the time, but kicks their asses sometimes too!
BibleGod even kills off enormous quantities of His own select group at times. Just keep delving deeper into The Babble and you'll find a few of those instances.